Delhi High Court
Savita Gupta vs The New India Assurance Company ... on 23 April, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2609/2013
% April 23, 2013
SAVITA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Biji Rajesh, Advocate with Mr.
Gaurang Kanth, Advocate.
versus
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is an employee
of the respondent- New India Assurance Company Limited, challenging the
orders dated 4.4.2013, 2.4.2013, 16.4.2013 and 18.4.2013 to the limited
extent that though promotion in terms of these orders be given, however the
petitioner be not transferred from Delhi to Mathura consequent to her being
promoted.
2. Counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner being a lady
officer should be accommodated by not being transferred from Delhi to
Mathura which is at a distance of 160 Km. It is also argued that as per the
transfer policy of the respondent an employee who has stayed longer in
Delhi should be preferred first for transfer and only thereafter the petitioner
should have been transferred. The relevant portion of the transfer policy
which is relied upon reads as under:-
"D. GENERAL REGULATIONS
The company shall on annual basis, determine the cadre strength in
each cadre in terms of norms adopted. Distribution of such strength
among the individual Regions and H.O. in each cadre shall be
determined by a Committee of General Managers (Personnel &
Marketing) so as to ensure need based and equitable distribution of
available manpower.
(ii) On completion of NPP, an officer may be considered for transfer
from existing place of posting irrespective of assignment. This
exercise shall be done during the first quarter of every year.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the powers of the
Management to transfer any officer before completion of the normal
period of posting.
(iii) While considering the transfers on account of NPP under
para C(4) above, if the number of officers for consideration of such
transfer in any cadre is found to be large at a particular station, and
transfers of all at one time is likely to dislocate the operation of the
Company, CMD may allow consideration of such transfers in a phased
manner.
While restricting transfers in such a phased manner the order of
transfer shall be in accordance with the length of continuous posting i.e
the longer the posting, the first to be considered for transfer."
3. On the basis of last three lines of the aforesaid para D of the
transfer policy, it is argued that the petitioner is being discriminated against
inasmuch as one Smt. Rama Malik has been in Delhi from 31.3.2003 and the
petitioner has been in Delhi from the year 2004 and therefore it is Smt.
Rama Malik who should be transferred and not the petitioner.
4. I may at the outset state that the transfer is an incident of
service. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with transfer orders because
organizations know best how they are run and which employee is to be
posted where as per the needs of the organizations. It is only in very limited
cases of violation of policy/rules or gross malafides that the Courts interfere
in the transfer orders.
5. In the present case petitioner has got promotion and thereafter
she has been transferred to Mathura. The clause relied upon by the counsel
for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case because
the lines of clause which have been relied upon pertain to the position where
suddenly lots of transfers have taken place and therefore in order not to
affect the working of an establishment, transfers are made in a phased
manner and consequently the person who has stayed longer at a place will be
posted earlier, that too at the discretion of the CMD.
6. In the present case, there is no case as set up or established of
the establishment at Delhi being affected on account of large scale transfers
and therefore the clause and the lines relied upon by the petitioner have no
application.
7. Let me now assume that clause which is relied upon applies,
however, even if the clause applies then on the admitted case of the
petitioner also it is not as if Smt. Rama Malik is not being transferred and in
fact Smt. Rama Malik has been transferred to Sahibabad in U.P., though the
same is much lesser distance than Mathura. Therefore, it is not as if the
petitioner can contend that Smt. Rama Malik who was posted for a longer
period in Delhi is not being transferred and effectively the contention of the
petitioner boils down to that Courts must take into account various distances
for transfer of an employee. In my opinion, this is quite impermissible both
ordinarily as also in the present case.
8. I may note that the petitioner very conveniently wants
promotion and is only challenging the impugned orders limited to the
transfer portion of the order. Petitioner cannot have her cake and eat it too
and claim that she wants promotion but she does not want to be transferred.
As already stated above, transfer being an incident of service it is not
permissible for the petitioner to conveniently only challenge the portion of
the impugned order which transfers the petitioner from Delhi to Mathura,
transfer/postings being administrative/functional requirements of an
organization. I also note, and though it may not be too much relevant, that it
is not as if the petitioner is being posted in a remote or far flung area or a
place at a very long distance from Delhi. Mathura, after all would hardly be
at a distance of about two hours from Delhi, and well connected by both rail
and road even for daily commuting.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is
accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
APRIL 23, 2013
Ne
